Forthcoming patch notes
 

Today has probably the best set of fixes I have ever seen:

20th july
* Improved move order validation.
* Battle enchantments expire when caster retreats from battle ground.
* New switch: --nocheatdet.
* nation mods are now properly recognized when starting network games.
* Increased maximum number of maps allowed in the map folder.

The first two fix probably the biggest two gameplay bugs remaining - excellent news I think. But the 4th one - well, I am absolutely over the moon about it. I don't imagine it means much to anyone else, but it means that the LlamaServer will be able to start games with mod nations itself. Previously I'd have to start them manually through the GUI, and that was the one outstanding thing that could not be done automatically. Now everything can be automated! w00t!

*dances*

Honestly I'm sure you'll all think I'm mad, but that's the fix I've been dreaming of. It may also be really helpful for the making mods more mainstream in the long run.

Re: Patch notes
 

This whole patch is shaping up nicely. I am pretty excited about the new mod commands and the attention the devs are giving modders in general, great stuff http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Re: Patch notes
 

Yep, great work, guys!

Re: Patch notes
 

Huh ? A new patch ? Where ???? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: Patch notes
 

In the oven.

And the aroma is great http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Patch notes
 

Haha ! The title has been edited !
I was wondering why I didn't see anything about the Thing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Yummy then. There comes an Age of Revelry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Patch notes
 

Interesting re: mod nation games.

I don't think that was the main reason they don't happen though. They just don't seem very popular.

Re: Patch notes
 

Really?
I thought they were great. I figured it was just that solo players arent really as interested in deadly AIs as they say they are.
Not being able to play multiplayer allied against killer new nations kindof held it up. Now the cap is off the ceiling. There is no need to design a nation that can be beat by a single player but is harder than the AI that comes with the game. Now we can have nations that REQUIRE a pantheon of player gods to beat it.

Re: Patch notes
 

I would like to see hard AI nations to beat, most games I play are SP (time restraints etc) So i love to see challenging AI players, the harder the better, makes for a lot more fun if the AI can beat the human player, makes the human player have to really work to win, instead of taking it for granted that he'll eventually beat the AI....

Re: Patch notes
 

I'm going to go on record to say that I'm really not a fan of the BE change, outside of the effect it has on MoD. I have always liked Dominions because it wasn't just a matter of two huge armies beating on one another. Even with all of the magic and options the game often comes down to a game of resource management, and I believe this change takes away some of the most powerful tactics available to deal with an enemy in an elegant fashion.

The current tactic of teleporting a BE caster which can then flee the battlefield and a unit to stick around and entertain the enemy army while the BE does its work is one of my personal favorites. While it can be brutally effective it also carries a lot of risk, as a reasonable blocker unit will have to be fairly well equipped, and if the blocking unit is taken down the BE will end. I don't think many people have a problem with this working the way it does.

The current 50-turn battle limit is another reason this tactic is so important. Having an army that's simply large enough to absorb the losses inflicted by an SC should NOT be a valid tactic, but it becomes one as soon as this change goes live. It's a joy seeing golems at full HP evaporate on turn 50 in the middle of chasing down a couple of crippled stragglers from the enemy army, believe me.

By forcing the caster to stick around (necessarily behind a large wall of chaff to keep them alive) the game devolves more towards a phyrric style of play, in which tactics become a secondary concern to resources. It becomes quite difficult to defeat an opposing army without suffering significant losses unless you have appropriate resistances on your troops, and the ability to respond to a distant threat is severely curtailed, since mobility spells become insufficient to move enough chaff to protect the caster.

Granted, many of these things aren't bad in and of themselves, but they certainly change the flavor and balance of the game in a major way beyond what a simple bug fix ought to, IMO, and it does it by removing a large section of available tactics, not by adding or adjusting ones that are in place.

I don't think this will change the minds of those in charge, but I wanted to at least have a eulogy for one of my favorite things about the game.

Re: Patch notes
 

I agree with Micah that the overall nerfing of battlefield enchantments, so that the caster cannot retreat and still have his spell active, is too much. True, this would fix the Mists of Deception cheat, but it also severely limits other tactics that are not considered cheats.

I would ask that the Devs rethink this before they release the next patch.

Re: Patch notes
 

Personally I'm glad to see air queen 1 + air queen 2 = army anywhere on the map destroyed, gone from the game. The whole process of having a mage who can cast a BE enchantment, and then leave, without maintaining it, but then if they die while they're still there, it goes away, seems nonthematic, and silly to me. If you're going to cast heat from hell, grip of winter, quagmire, solar brilliance, then you better be damn well willing to risk that mage in the fight that the mage is bringing his value to. By letting mages retreat from battle, that risk/reward ratio is severely impaired by simply removing a good deal of risk.

If anything, it just seems like your complaint is more about the low turn limit. Since armies can get so large, especially in the late game, I wouldn't mind seeing the 50 turn limit raised.

I mean, the whole reason you put a turn limit is to prevent fights from going on into infinity, but the cap should be something high enough that you only reach it /when/ fights would go onto infinity. Right now the problem is that you reach the cap with a regular army.

I think a 200 turn hard limit would probably be fine.

Anyways, bravo on resolving a long standing bug.

Jazzepi

Re: Patch notes
 

And what would a 200 turn limit do to those of us with slower processors? I agree that it would be nice, but would it be playable?

Re: Patch notes
 

I don't think it would do anything but effect the turn processing time. The battleview itself would run at the same speed, though it might take longer to watch the whole thing.

The change would be mostly transparent for people playing MP since the turn processes would be done on the host machine. Also, you probably wouldn't hit that 200 turn limit cap too often.

Jazzepi

Re: Patch notes
 

Upping the turn limit would help, it's true, although an SC taking 150 turns to clear things out wouldn't get any of the mages, which is one of the nice things about the BEs...you actually do some real damage to your unprepared opponent.

And the key here really is that they have to be unprepared. I certainly wouldn't drop a pair of AQs into an enemy army that was slinging around any of the myriad SC-killer spells (Life for a life, gifts from heaven, enslave mind/soul slay, weapons of sharpness + strength of giants, Stream of life/CHARM...and all of those have excellent range aside from charm, there are plenty more short range ones) so your claim that any army on the map can be killed by a couple of queens is pretty laughable.

The other reason just fixing the turn limit still isn't what I'd like to see is because of cheap summon chaff. Skel spam is already incredibly powerful in a lot of situations, and if you have critical mass of mages they can keep it up for 50 turns or 5000. I've been buried in imps from lifelong protections. An unending supply of ghost wolves should not be enough to fend off an avenging nephilim until he gets bored and wanders off. BE's are supposed to be the ultimate answer to over-bloated but improperly constructed armies. Hell, it's in the rulebook. Let them do their job.

Re: Patch notes
 

I don't see how that has anything to do with the BE http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Obviously the quote about two air queens killing any army was an exercise in hyperbole, but a properly equipped air queen can push her MR to something like 28 or so. All she needs then is regen and two shields to hold off chaff indefinitely. Especially if the opponent has their mages to the far back (which tends to be the default position).

About the only thing I'd be afraid of then would be petrify and drain life, and that's only if the chaff doesn't move fast enough while the air queen is buffing that the mages don't get caught in the back casting self-buffs, and then spamming useless spells.

Jazzepi

Re: Patch notes
 

Personally, life for life and gifts from heaven are what terrify my SCs the most.

Re: Patch notes
 

Really I don't understand all this hatred against the turn limit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif

As this game is supposed to work well even on low-level systems, pumping up this limit would render the waiting between turns a lot longer... can you imagine 200 turn battles in a large map with 15 nations? Heeek! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rant.gif

2nd, I think a not so long turn limit makes perfect sense. After all, a turn just represent a month and (unless teleportations, which still take time for magic preparatives) involves the preparatives for the equipment tents and stuff, the trip from one region to another, the battle which takes days... And it's not easy to fight and stay in a province under the direct control of the enemy - after some time, you want or not, an army has to fall back for resupplying, regathering troops, reorganize formations. And both the attacker and the defender have their right to see their reinforcements on the march from the neighbour provinces come after some time battling - they are not fighting endlessy in a limbo separed from the physic world.
As it is IMHO, the turn limit gives plenty of time for a strong attacker to kill many, many units. But if it is unable to kill/rout all of them before 50 turns, he just wasn't strong enough to do it in just one month. He reorganizes, receives the reinforcements, the defender does so, and the fight begins again.

The only minor problem came from MoD (solved) and the other few tactics - usually spells - not working as stated, with units non-retreating after their time and the defender dying. Vengeance of the Dead i.e.

Re: Patch notes
 

I'm all in favor of increasing the hard coded turn limit to something in the range [100,200].

I can relate to some Micah's points. Yes, I think the change has huge impact on game play, much beyond what a simple bug fix should do, and Yes, it will eliminate a favorite tactic of using SCs to eradicate armies.

Having said that I must confess that I'm still in favor of the BE change for the following reason:
A. Consistency. As Jazzepi pointed out, it doesn't make sense that the mages death will stop the BE while his fleeing the battle won't.
B. Flavor. IMHO, MP end games deteriorate too much into SC slug fest where mundane armies lose their relevancy. I don't really like having the spend so much of my thinking at the end game to analyzing what SCs the enemy has, how they are equipped and scripted and then have to come up with counters (in the form of my SCs) to those. And this process takes place every turn b/c a capable opponent will always adapt. The game is about nations and their gods battling for supremacy and not a glorified death match.
Given, its all about the balance of things. I like SCs, I like the role play feel to them and their ability to take and deal sever punishment. But I think the scale has tipped too far towards SC dominance.

The change will not invalidate SCs at all. A group of SCs, some blockers and some BE casters could still eradicate unprepared armies. But it will be a bit more difficult to execute and the risk will be greater (as Jazzepi has pointed out).

I don't think this will make end game less about tactics. tactics would still be there, from raiding, assassinating, casting artillery spells and so on and so forth. The tactic of casting and BE and retreating will not be there, and the end of the day, I like it better that way.

Re: Patch notes
 

Gandalf - I think the most common use will simply be to add more, interesting nations to multiplayer, where they are of similar strength to the base game. e.g. Sombre's Skaven, Arga Dis, Ulm Reborn and so on. I've really enjoyed the games I've played with them in.

Sombre: Well, the games I've started with mod nations included have always filled up. I just don't really have time to start many games.

Re: Patch notes
 

I'm also in favor of increasing the turn limit. Ideally this should become an adjustable game setting.

As time passes eventually patches for Dominions_3 will stop, however computers will continue to become more and more powerful. Dominions_3 will live longer for all gamers if the game can continue to adjust to the computers of tomorrow.

Re: Patch notes
 

Tifone:

How many battles go beyond 50 turns? Just a few. So from time to time you'd have a battle that lasts 100 turns. It would be like counting 1 more battle, almost no difference. And those battles that end with turn limit really limit tactcs and screw some pople unfairly.

Re: Patch notes
 

To me this is just not a "computers' power" issue... It is a logical issue - that battles that last a long time aren't placed in a limbo out of the world, but it's normal that after a while both defenders and attackers have their reinforcements arrive, and need to reorganize.

For the battle's timing too, 50 seem a lot, and just right. I mean, after 3 turns waiting, the most of the troops need to attack or retreat. That's maybe one turn to reach the enemy and then 44 to bash each other. It doesn't seem so restrictive.

I just would like someone to tell me what can an upper turn limit add to the game experience - actually, I see no advantage. While the things as they are have the advantage are:

-low-systems friendly for no long waits
-logical for the needs of the armies to reorganize
-a balance issue as the troops you have in the proximities of the battle (near provinces) should be able to join the fight after some time.

Really, why do you ask for an upper turn limit?

Even an adjustable issue - I dunno. Wouldn't that create a lot of confusion for the MP games? I mean, having battles ending at 50 turns or at 200 goes for a ground-breaking change in gameplay. Deciding a turn limit for every MP game, while many adjusts it in SP the way they like, could end up being uncomfortable for people used to different battle tactics.

I don't wanna do destructive criticism for that. I would like someone explaining me the point, if there is any. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif Peace

Re: Patch notes
 

Zeldor: why a battle should last more than 50 turns? Because the attacker didn't bring the necessary amount of... let's call it "firepower", to get rid of the defence in that province.
He went deep into enemy territory, where the PD, the paesants keeping the supplies, everything is against him - and he wasn't able in a 50 turns fight to clear the province of the defenders. The battle lasted more than one month. Isn't it obvious that now his soldiers need to retreat to a friendly province (or at least try to) to reorganize, resupply, have reinforcements? Don't the defender after 50 turns have the right to receive the reinforcements coming from the friendly provinces?

Historic realistic example everybody know: WWI. The war of attrition - no faction having at the borders enough soldiers to conquer the enemy territory. The fights didn't last forever till one side won the territory - they lasted months, with the dying soldiers being replaced continuously.

If you tell me that some spells and some situations bring this "turn limit rule" to a bug/exploit level, I can agree that it is unfair. But I think maybe those spells need an adjustement, like it is gonna happen for the MoD phantasms, not the whole turn limit system.

Re: Patch notes
 

many ppl complain of the VoD turn limit exploit.

I recall once exploiting the turn limit by using tons of fatigue spells (heat from hell, curse of stones, rigor mortis) + LaD to cause both armies to fall asleep until the turn limit hit and I won. The LaD was just there to resurrect my units who died from fatigue, so I could hold out a little longer.

the battle ended with a legions of sleepy Hydras fleeing from three (yes, farking THREE) soulless. It's one of my most memorable battles ever. Even better, I moved in a flying SC to the province that the attacking army was leaving; turn order worked out so that they left, and I captured that province. When they fled due to the turn limit, they all got auto-killed. It wasn't elegant, but it worked.

I don't think what I did was an exploit though, it took planning and execution, the VoD is just cheap ***.

Also on another note, I'd like to see turn order randomization improved. In this particular game, I moved AFTER this person basically every move that we made into each others territory (not from friendly to friendly). In ten such cases of movement, I swear this nation moved before me everytime. It would be nice to see smaller armies, non-stealth, and flying armies get a bonus in the random move order, or something. I don't understand why my flying cyclops can't ever intercept an army of 50 Hydras.

Re: Patch notes
 

Nah, 50 turn really promotes undead, as they don't rout with turn limit. Or paralyzing someone for 30 turns. Or berserk troops. Losing sides get some of that and battle goes on to turn75 because of that and winner routs.

Another thing is mindless commanders vanishing at turn50. That is not funny.

Many battles just deserve to be resolved on battlefield, not by some virtual turn limit that forces whole army to spread into neighbouring provinces.

Re: Patch notes
 

Omnirizon - I support you in that.

Zeldor - I don't want to be critic, but we are discussing and you're still not bringing me a reason on why aren't those situations you mentioned to need some kind of adjustement, but the whole turn-limit system http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Am I wrong? Peace friends

Re: Patch notes
 

Tifone:

I said it -
"Battles should be decided on battlefield. "
You kill the enemy or force him to rout, so you won. But being lucky or just using ways to stale [even if they also require planning] is not how battles should be won.

Re: Patch notes
 

mmh... but why not? staling tactics, waiting for 1) your reinforcements to come from the rear lines keeping the enemies at bay or 2) your rear lines to organize better the rearmost defences, are the bread and butter of the military campaigns.
Have you ever played Call of Duty, seen Saving Private Ryan (last battle), seen the movie 300?
If you did you know what I'm talking about http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Sometimes battles last more than one month because the defenders of one territory, even if doomed to lose on the long time, just doesn't want the enemy to pass through a point immediately and come out with tactics to slow him. Even in real world, without fatiguing magic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif So why to change this well-implemented feature in the game?

Re: Patch notes
 

dom3 is a game more about options than realism. that said, i'd ask first what allows for more options: 50 turn limits or 100? or 200? or whatever.

realism is decentered term anyway. does making a game more 'real' actually make it more real?

Re: Patch notes
 

I don't think anyone here suggests nerfing fatigue or delaying battle tactics.

If you could delay for 50 turns, with longer limit you'll need to delay for 100 turns or more. Its doable.

The turn limit need to be upped so that mindless SCs will have more time to win (if they can); so that huge armies could battle it out and most importantly for the game to scale well and be playable in the long future.

Re: Patch notes
 

Bottom line is the devs apparently didn't intend for BEs to stay up after the caster retreats.

The MoD issue brought this into focus, but they fixed what they considered to be wrong, which wasn't just MoD, it was the way they all worked with retreat.

I agree with them but even if I didn't I'd just have to get used to it.

Re: Patch notes
 

Tifone:

Your other army sits in a different province. That is tens of miles away! There is no way they can get in time for that battle, no matter how much staling you do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif 50 turn would be few hours max in real time. So not even realistic approach works here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

In late game I had way too many battles ending in turn limit, that was just frustrating [and opponent didn't try to stale, he just put his armies, I put mine and we both tried to win].

Re: Patch notes
 

- Do you think the game will not be playable in the long future if the mechanics don't involve endless battle to take place in a month, instead of how is now working? What, Monopoly is now unplayable because after so many years, we didn't change the mechanics to the option of throwing the dices 100 times a turn, because our dice factories are better and we can now afford a bigger number of dices so mechanics of the game must adequate? Is the number of turns which made the quality of this game in the long time?
- Do you think if a mindless SC needs more time than 50 turns, it's not because he wasn't adequate to beat the defending army, but because the turn limit is not higher?

Sorry, don't want to seem sarcastic or mean or angry or whatever http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif I'm not and I'm just explaining my points in the discussion and try to understand the reasons behind your ones, as actually I can't. Peace brothers, I really love you alllllllz http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

P.S. I know it is annoying losing mindless units after many battle turns. Exactly like it would be annoying if you sent unsupported mechs or tanks in enemy territory, and after much killing they don't own the territory and end their autonomy or fuel behind enemy lines. The people there would just dismantle them. I think this makes the same sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Patch notes
 

Tifone:

I have one suggestion - think before posting! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif If you want to convince anyone to your arguments don't humiliate yourself with examples that are neither funny or good.

Mindless commanders like Golem vanish! on turn 50, not retreat. They suddenly stop to exist.

As I said, you are the attacked, you win the battle, but do not manage to kill few enemy units. Ha, it gets even worse - your enemy routs, but does not manage to do it before turn 50 [say he has many crippled or low AP ones], so routing triggers for you and you have faster/flying ones, so you rout faster and you lose. Many battles get resolved on turns 30-45, but they need some edge to end properly [routing, killing last units, killing paralyzed units].

Re: Patch notes
 

Zeldor - saying that no matter how much you can stale, nobody will EVER arrive in time to take part in the middle of a battle, makes me ask so how armies intercept each others, or how they just MOVE from one territory to another (even 3, 4 provinces far if they are fast) in one month.

For the comment about your late game, well it is so realistic that it is self-explanatory to me. There were huge forces in your battle, balanced, none of them preponderant. Were they supposed to kill each other completely in one month if after 50 turns probably some unit didn't even come in contact to the enemy? probably not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif You and your enemies tried to win of course, not trying to stale, but still it takes too much time to huge armies to completely annihilate each other - in the game as in real war. The biggest clashes of the 100 years war weren't resolved in just one month, or it would have been called the A Couple Of Months War http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Patch notes
 

You don't have real armies in Dominions. Biggest medieval battle had over 100k soldiers fighting. Here huge ary is 1k people http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

And you can win the battle, even big battle, before turn50. But as I said, slow routing, trying to kill remaining units etc etc change the result.

Re: Patch notes
 

I think a lot. That was exactly what I was saying, so maybe that is you who need to think better to what I said before going against me that way. Mindless commanders vanish - they are MINDLESS, they need some influence on them to make them work probably? So they don't escape or retreat, they just stop working and you can imagine people destroy ("dismantle") them. Same example, not "humiliating" myself.

And you're still trying to counter my simple logical examples with some examples of some dubious mechanics. So instead to have those mechanics (like the ones about the few, slow retreating units) resolved logically, you want to change the whole system to a less logical way to resolve them. This just doesn't make sense to me.

And my examples ARE funny http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Peace

Re: Patch notes
 

Has been explained in the bug discussion thread. It's WAD and it's going to stay that way. Just how many mindless commanders are there? The golem? With the golem it is, as per the bug discussion thread explanation, thematic. The soulless from Army of the Dead? Those two are the only ones I can think of.

If someone happened to use the Life After Death spell to get upkeep-free soulless mages and lost those to rout, it can also be interpreted as the magic keeping them around as soulless puppets unraveling due to being overstrained. Exceptions can't be coded for every specific instance, so people are just going to have to live with it.

So let's say the turn limit is raised to 75/100, which is about the most realistic we could expect. Does this alter the situation at all? Not much, and there must still be a way to resolve a combat that does not stretch to infinity. The salient point is that every player is expected to bring enough resources to bear to actually finish things and if they don't, then it's too bad for them.

Re: Patch notes
 

Edi:

I will have to talk with KO about that when I have a chance http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And yes, it means the Golem, the easiest alternative to Tartarians. The SC of choice for earth nations. I also think that gargoyle is mindless.

And yes, 25 turns more will change a lot. Probably resolve 75% problems with losing because enemy routed too fast etc.

Re: Patch notes
 

I still don't understand why should it be raised but if the devs think it's necessary I will of course adapt even if not understanding http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif Long life to pacific solutions - Peace at you Zeldor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif (I think KO reads our threads and makes his consideration by himself? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif but good luck with it, what else can I say)

Re: Patch notes
 

I think the arguments as to why it should be raised are fairly clear. I don't mind it that much but there are definitely pros and cons.

Re: Patch notes
 

Try playing the Jotun with a E9N10 bless and use werewolves in shroud of battle saint + ring of regeneration (40% regen), with reinvig boots and MR amulet and buffed with luck and body ethearal of course.

These berserk unkillable werewolves make any battle against a big conventional army last 50+ rounds, in most situations they win in defense about as surely as a MoD spell (hum yes there are some % of chance to counter them with slaying spells or some lucky critical hits, K will probably post an example). But due to their berserking their superpower turn against them in attack were they are often autokilled in attack in round 75, if opponents are numerous enough.

A turn limit around round 100 would make more of these battles end by a real victory or defeat instead. A "conventionnal end" being the matter of some lucky critical hits or unlucky moral check finally rolled by the troops surrounding the werewolves, any turn added would reduce the chance of auto-victory/defeat.

Re: Patch notes
 

I don't want to sound an unrequested "adviser" or "i-am-the-smart-guy". But a (humble and just one of the possible ones) solution came maybe to my mind, so I'd like to expose it at the attention of you experts for any comment - stone me alive if you wish http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif .

Wouldn't it be nice if, regardless of the turn, when the whole enemy army has been routed (the "The armies of XXX has routed"), it has, let's say 5 or 10 more turns to retreat all the units, and then the ones remaining on the battlefield of the defeated side - the slow, fatigued ones, the mindless, the phantasm, the unretreating ones, the immobiles - disappear? They didn't make it, they were unable to rout or "out of autonomy", so the winning army and even the paesants of the nation killed/dismantled them?
Wouldn't it be logical and resolving all the problems you have with turn limit?

I feel in real discomfort suggesting things that might take too much time to the devs to implement, or changing the gameplay (that I really like).
But if you guys think at this issue as a problem, maybe this needs to be repaired someway, and imho this one could be a nice, logical solution which doesn't create endless battles (sorry, an hyperbole to talk about the 200! turns long battles someone talked about)

Peace, with humility your friend Tifone
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Re: Patch notes
 

Tifone:

The problems is that maybe it would be better, but we should make reasonable requests for devs. Increasing turn limit is easy. Changing mechanics take a lot of time and we can get many other things coded instead.

Re: Patch notes
 

Twan - I take your point. You sent your SC to slaugthering the enemies in a province, he is in the good position but the time ends. The month is finished and he didn't kill everybody. If this game was having a system in which a province can has an ingoing battle on, this should be this way. But this is not the case at all. So, should your werewolf be closed with the enemy army in an endless limbo where he can kill everybody in all the time he wants, and the enemy being unable to receive reinforcements for all 100 turns (which is the double of the current battle-time)? mmh. It doesn't seem the solution to me. neither mine is very valid in this situation, I admit, but neither the limbo one. So? We don't have a solution. Maybe someone else has one in mind?

Re: Patch notes
 

Zeldor,

quoting myself, what a pity ^_^
I'm one for asking reasonable things ONLY to the devs. But asking them to change the somehow realistic gameplay of all the battles, because now has its flaws in some situations you pointed out, in a imho LESS logic and realistic way, just seems weird.
I see I'm the minority, I am not playing the devil's advocate. I just defend the way the game works and suggesting that maybe a more logical solution is possible.

Re: Patch notes
 

Tifone:

Really, 1 turn battle may be 15-60 minutes of real battle. Reinforccements argument doesn't work. And it's not about not killing some regenerating/berserk units, but not killing them fast enough before turn limit.

Re: Patch notes
 

One suggestion was for attacking armies to retreat to a random neighboring friendly province when the "battle timer" runs out, instead of just evaporating in a puff of bodily vapours. That's only for awake, mobile units in the attacking army, of course, and only helps if you have a province to retreat to. And it doesn't do much to help VoD.

Re: Patch notes
 

Oh, I didn't know you were a "real battles" electric stopwatcher Zeldor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Your argument is the one which doesn't work. Those are SAMPLES of battles. Real battles for what that matters aren't in turns, aren't often in full open field, aren't without difference in terrain, aren't without units taking cover... but surely real warfare IS involving the use of reinforcements coming from the back lines and the barracks of your nation, even by aircraft (and we /have/ fast air units here) to replace the dead and the wounded. If this must be eliminated by a strategic game, it loses some of the pure strategic part, you can't deny it, really.

Peace